End commercial gillnetting on the Columbia River. Need your help

[Curly]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

I remember reading some stats, back when the no nets initiative went to vote in this State (over 10 years ago), and they showed what Jackmaster stated..........that sportfishing does bring more money into the economy than commercial fishing.  Maybe I can google and find some of that info.

[Curly]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

they also often are property owners in the community paying property taxes and levies, not to mention B&O and other taxes related to operating a business then add in permitting licensing for fishing and boats and equipment.  again why do sportsmen deserve that portion of the catch?  because that is what I am hearing sportsmen are more entitled to those fish than the commercial guys.

It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource.  Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch.  And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year. 

[pianoman9701]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

they also often are property owners in the community paying property taxes and levies, not to mention B&O and other taxes related to operating a business then add in permitting licensing for fishing and boats and equipment.  again why do sportsmen deserve that portion of the catch?  because that is what I am hearing sportsmen are more entitled to those fish than the commercial guys.

It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource.  Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch.  And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.

I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.

[Curly]

Ghost nets in the Columbia River

[runamuk]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

they also often are property owners in the community paying property taxes and levies, not to mention B&O and other taxes related to operating a business then add in permitting licensing for fishing and boats and equipment.  again why do sportsmen deserve that portion of the catch?  because that is what I am hearing sportsmen are more entitled to those fish than the commercial guys.

It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource.  Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch.  And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.

I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.

I was following that line of debate.
If we go back to nets then get all nets out or you are not really doing anything more than putting a band aid on an arterial bleed....

are there any rivers in WA or even Canada or AK that have removed all nets and seen massive returns of fish? if so start using that precedence to sell the need to remove nets and quit trying to dog on commercial guys over sportsmen which is what keeps happening when saying the sportsmen would get more of the catch....

[Curly]

I think I remember reading about gillnetting being banned in the Sacramento River years ago.  Now there is a huge run of salmon in the Sacramento River.  I did a lot of reading and research when I-696 was going on in this State, but I don't have the info saved.  Might have to google the Sacramento River info.

[PBinWA]

Then you'll have to be happy with nothing.  They're not going to give up their treaty rights.

I've got native relatives.  They will never give up their treaty rights so I don't see why I should either.

[Curly]

An ironic note in the story of Sacramento River basin salmon: river gillnetting was banned in 1957, not for the welfare of salmon, but because of protests from striped bass fishermen. Gillnetters had to throw back incidental takes of stripers, and fishermen objected to seeing dead fish floating by, especially when their own luck was bad, so all river gillnetting was stopped.

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft209nb0qn;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print

I could do more research, but I have to get to work now.  But, I probably will just give up.  I sounds like its all or nothing with most folks......... so what's the use in learning what benefits of removing at least some of the nets would be?

[Huntbear]

You guys are missing a very important point on all this about the salmon.

The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time.  They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery.  Mark my words, it will happen.  They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen.   Just how much salmon THEY can net...  I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish...  later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims... 

I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...   

So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES.....  It is all about the money, plain and simple... 

[WSU]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

they also often are property owners in the community paying property taxes and levies, not to mention B&O and other taxes related to operating a business then add in permitting licensing for fishing and boats and equipment.  again why do sportsmen deserve that portion of the catch?  because that is what I am hearing sportsmen are more entitled to those fish than the commercial guys.

It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource.  Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch.  And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.

I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.

Here you go:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_04_econ_fnl_corrected.pdf

WDFW and the legislature know that sports put millions more into our economy, but keep propping up the commecial fishing industry (at the expense of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs) because the commercials are more organized to assert their political will (a better "special interest group," if you will).  Read the summary below, and then imagine if we didn't piss away half the allowable fish in the Big C by letting 100 and some odd dudes net them as a hobby (they almost all have other jobs, like fishing in Alaska).  It is a disgraceful waste of our public resource that does nothing but cost our ecnomony and thousands of families jobs.

Here is the summary from the study:

"Study Conclusions

Ultimately, our findings indicate that commercial and recreational fisheries not only contribute employment and personal income, but also contribute in several other significant ways to Washington’s economy, as well as to its residents’ quality of life.

In terms of economic impacts, commercial and recreational fishing conducted in Washington fisheries directly and indirectly supported an estimated 16,374 jobs and $540 million in personal income in 2006. When viewed in the context of the Washington state economy, these levels of employment and earnings account for about 0.4 percent of total statewide employment and about 0.2 percent of total statewide personal income in 2006.

Recreational fishing generates the larger share of economic impacts, supporting 12,850 jobs or more than three-quarters of the fishing-related jobs in 2006. Of the jobs supported by recreational anglers, state residents accounted for more than 90 percent of the spending that supports these jobs.

While the spending by non-resident anglers contributes to the tourism economy in Washington State, spending by resident anglers serves to direct discretionary consumer spending toward fishing-related goods and services. As a consequence, spending by non-resident anglers plays a more pivotal role in supporting the state economy than does the spending by resident anglers.

The non-treaty commercial fishery in Washington waters also contributes an estimated $38 million in net economic values (net income or profits), allowing commercial fishers to participate in a livelihood that has been passed down from generation to generation. And, recreational fisheries generate an estimated $424 million in net economic values (over and above expenditures) to the estimated 725,000 residents who live and fish in Washington, suggesting that sport fishing substantially contributes to anglers’ quality of life."

[pianoman9701]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

they also often are property owners in the community paying property taxes and levies, not to mention B&O and other taxes related to operating a business then add in permitting licensing for fishing and boats and equipment.  again why do sportsmen deserve that portion of the catch?  because that is what I am hearing sportsmen are more entitled to those fish than the commercial guys.

It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource.  Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch.  And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.

I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.

Here you go:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_04_econ_fnl_corrected.pdf

WDFW and the legislature know that sports put millions more into our economy, but keep propping up the commecial fishing industry (at the expense of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs) because the commercials are more organized to assert their political will (a better "special interest group," if you will).  Read the summary below, and then imagine if we didn't piss away half the allowable fish in the Big C by letting 100 and some odd dudes net them as a hobby (they almost all have other jobs, like fishing in Alaska).  It is a disgraceful waste of our public resource that does nothing but cost our ecnomony and thousands of families jobs.

Here is the summary from the study:

"Study Conclusions

Ultimately, our findings indicate that commercial and recreational fisheries not only contribute employment and personal income, but also contribute in several other significant ways to Washington’s economy, as well as to its residents’ quality of life.

In terms of economic impacts, commercial and recreational fishing conducted in Washington fisheries directly and indirectly supported an estimated 16,374 jobs and $540 million in personal income in 2006. When viewed in the context of the Washington state economy, these levels of employment and earnings account for about 0.4 percent of total statewide employment and about 0.2 percent of total statewide personal income in 2006.

Recreational fishing generates the larger share of economic impacts, supporting 12,850 jobs or more than three-quarters of the fishing-related jobs in 2006. Of the jobs supported by recreational anglers, state residents accounted for more than 90 percent of the spending that supports these jobs.

While the spending by non-resident anglers contributes to the tourism economy in Washington State, spending by resident anglers serves to direct discretionary consumer spending toward fishing-related goods and services. As a consequence, spending by non-resident anglers plays a more pivotal role in supporting the state economy than does the spending by resident anglers.

The non-treaty commercial fishery in Washington waters also contributes an estimated $38 million in net economic values (net income or profits), allowing commercial fishers to participate in a livelihood that has been passed down from generation to generation. And, recreational fisheries generate an estimated $424 million in net economic values (over and above expenditures) to the estimated 725,000 residents who live and fish in Washington, suggesting that sport fishing substantially contributes to anglers’ quality of life."

A much better argument. Do you know how much of that $424M is attributed to the salmon industry - probably a huge portion. My point being that sport fishing encompasses trout, bass, walleye, sturgeon, deep water stuff - all other than salmon, which is our discussion. But I would imagine that salmon fishing is a huge chunk.

Good post for the argument!

[JimmyHoffa]

are there any rivers in WA or even Canada or AK that have removed all nets and seen massive returns of fish? if so start using that precedence to sell the need to remove nets and quit trying to dog on commercial guys over sportsmen which is what keeps happening when saying the sportsmen would get more of the catch....

At the moment and for about 4 more years, the Elwha river on the peninsula has a no net/no fishing moratorium in place.  It might be one to watch.  Even while the dams are being removed, they are having fish return in larger numbers because of the net removal.  One dam has been removed and the other is still in progress, but all the bios so far have 'been amazed' at how quickly fish are returning and keep telling everyone how were gonna have these massive fish returns once all that habitat is opened back up.  The indians are busy working on their hatchery.  The questions being asked around are....if the dams coming down are the cure for the tribe's salmon woes, then why would they need a hatchery?  They tell everyone it is to assist in the rebuilding of the fish stocks, but most I've talked to around the project say the tribe knows that as soon as they start putting their nets back in all the 'miraculous recovery' is going to disappear.  A net is a dam to fish, but not water.

[WSU]

I don't think that there is any reason for the hatchery other than the tribe on the Elwah wants to continue harvesting fish.  They don't want to wait for recovery, which may take decades, prior to fishing, and have stated as much.

[jackmaster]

ever since the hard rule changes on fishing in just the little town of sekui has put a serious hurtn on it, my uncle owns one of the little hotels and marinas, and the amount of money has been cut in more than half and that is just from rule changes, people dont fish there like they use to, and little towns like chinook and illwaco suffer because when nets are in the water or the netters are out netting, people dont fish, why spend the gas and go there when the fish have been abused by netters, if you fish you know what happens when the nets are in the water, IF YOU CANT CATCH IT YOURSELF YOU DONT DESERVE TO EAT IT, what is wrong with that, could you imagine the runs of salmon we would have if we did away with comercial netting, or just restrict them to ocean waters, what would be wrong with that.....

[WSU]

A lot is wrong with restricting them to ocean waters, the biggest problem being that the netters and those setting the seasons cannot know what run of fish they are killing.  If you net in terminal areas, such as a river, you can control how many fish from that river are netted.  If you net in the ocean, you have a lot less control over the origin of the fish killed.  We already have that problem with the majority (as in over 50% of possible returning adults) being netted in Alaska and BC before they ever have a chance to get back to Washington.  The entire netting program needs a serious overhaul.